Date of filing: 05-03-2014
Date of Disposal: 20-04-2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU.
PRESENT: -Kum. Y.H.Prameela Reddy, M.A., LL.B., President
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 20th day of April, 2015
C.C.NO.78/2014
Between:
- Smt.Bollavaram Ajitha
W/o Madhukar Sam
Assistant Professor in
Civil Engineering,
Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological University,
- K.Madhukar Sam
S/o K.Sam
D.No.28-4-786, Upstairs,
Plot No.31, Old SBI Colony,
Ananthapuramu. …. Complainants
Vs.
- The Zonal Manager,
Indian Bank,
Sesha Peeran Street,
- The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank,
RTC Bus Stand Road,
Sreenivasa Nagar Branch,
Ananthapuramu. …. Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Ram Gopal and Sri M.Chandramouli, Advocates for the complainants and opposite party No.1 is called absent and set-exparte and Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 and 2 claiming a sum of Rs.10,25,000/- towards loss of profit on business, Rs.15,237/- towards Insurance and stamp duty, Rs.60,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint in total Rs.11,10,237/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants are permanent residents of Ananthapuramu Town . The 1st complainant is working as Assistant Professor in JNTU and the 2nd complainant is running business under the name and style of Madhu Technologies. The complainants have availed a housing loan from the 2nd opposite party Bank under IBHL Loan Account No.764363385 for a sum of Rs.20,60,000/- agreeing to repay the loan in 240 monthly equated installments at Rs.20,000/- per month. Accordingly the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on different dates from the date of sanctioning the housing loan.
3. The complainants further submit that on due satisfaction of the complainants repayment capacity, the 2nd opposite party has assured the 2nd complainant to sanction an additional loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- apart from the housing loan amount of Rs.20,60,000/- as the property is valued more than Rs.25,00,000/- and offered the said property of 2nd complainant towards the said loan. It is further submitted that before sanctioning the additional loan amount, the opposite party Bank deducted a sum of Rs.10,237/- on 25-11-2011 from the complainants joint account towards insurance said to have been sanctioned the additional loan amount and also collected stamp duty 0.5% over value of the property for the said additional loan amount after getting prior approval from the 1st opposite party. After completion of all the formalities, the 2nd opposite party Bank has recommended to the 1st opposite party for approval. But so far the 2nd opposite party Bank has not released the assured additional loan amount though 2nd opposite party given his approval even after a lapse of 2 years. In this connection, the 2nd complainant approached the 1st opposite party with regard to sanction of the said amount and the 2nd opposite party has also received circular from circle office. Even after that the 2nd complainant approached the 2nd opposite party number of times and requested for immediate sanction of loan, but the 2nd opposite party has not sanctioned the amount so far. It is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainants have suffered lot of mental agony.
4. Further the complainants submit that the 2nd complainant entered into a business proposal with M/s Sankar Arts, Ananthapuramu for sub-contract worth Rs.50,00,000/- with a fond hope that the opposite parties would sanction the additional amount towards his business. After entering into the sub-contract the 2nd complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for release of the additional loan amount, but the 2nd opposite party kept on postponing the same. Due to the improper acts of the 2nd opposite party, the said business proposal was delayed and later the said sub contract was cancelled and the 2nd complainant suffered huge loss in the said business proposal, apart from the loss of Rs.10,237/- plus 0.5% stamp duty and other charges. Even till today the opposite party has not responded to the repeated requests of the complainants. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable.
5. Further the complainants submit that the complainants got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties for sanction of assured additional loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 02-07-2013, but the opposite parties completely ignored the said notice. Further the opposite parties proceeded under the SARFAESI Act for the housing loan sanctioned by them and in this regard the opposite party also got issued a public notice that the 2nd opposite party has taken the possession of the property without notice and hence the 2nd complainant got issued another legal notice on 07-02-2014 questioning the opposite parties that instead of performing their part of contract, they illegally proceeded on the complainants under the guise of SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, the opposite parties got issued reply notice on 19-02-0214 through their counsel with all false allegations, but they have not denied the deduction of insurance amount of Rs.10,237/- and stamp duty 0.5% on the value of the property towards additional loan amount. The complainants submit that the opposite party intentionally acted adversely to the interest of the public institution and wantonly misguided the complainants only to harass them. Hence filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.10,25,000/- towards loss of profit on business, Rs.15,237/- towards insurance and 0.5% of stamp study on additional loan amount and Rs.60,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint totaling to a sum of Rs.11,10,237/-
6. Counter filed by the 2nd opposite party stating that the allegations made in the complaint are not correct and the complainants are put to strict proof of all the allegations, which are not specifically admitted. The allegation that the complainants are permanent residents of Ananthapuramu and the 1st complainant is working as Assistant Professor in JNTUC and the 2nd complainant is running business under the name and style of Madu Technologies is true.
7. The allegation that the complainants have availed a housing loan from the 2nd opposite party Bank under IBHL Loan Account No.74363385 for a sum of Rs.20,60,000/- agreeing to repay the loan in 240 monthly equated installments at Rs.20,000/- per month is true. The allegation that accordingly the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on different dates from the date of sanction of the housing loan is correct.
8. The allegation that on due satisfaction of the complainants repayment capacity, the 2nd opposite party has assured the 2nd complainant to sanction an additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/- apart from housing loan of Rs.20,60,000/- as the property is valued more than Rs.25,00,000/- and offered the said property of 2nd complainant towards the said loan and that before sanctioning the additional loan amount, the opposite party-Bank deducted a sum of Rs.10,237/- on 25-11-2011 from the complainants joint account towards insurance said to have been sanctioned the additional loan amount and also collected stamp duty of 0.5% over the value of the property for the said additional loan amount after getting prior approval from 1st opposite party and that after completion of all the formalities the 2nd opposite party Bank has recommended to 1st opposite party for approval and that so far the 2nd opposite party Bank has not released the assured additional loan amount though the 2nd opposite party given approval, even after a lapse of about 2 years and in this connection the 2nd complainant approached the 1st opposite party with regard to sanction of additional loan amount and they informed to the 2nd complainant that they have already issued a circular to sanction the said amount and the 2nd opposite party Bank has also received the circular from Circle Office and that even after that the 2nd complainant approached the 2nd opposite party number of times and requested for immediate sanction of loan, but the 2nd opposite party has not sanctioned the amount so far and that it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, for which the complainants have suffered lot of mental agony are all false and invented for the purpose of filing this complaint.
9. The allegation that the 2nd complainant entered into a business proposal with M/s Sankar Arts, Ananthapuramu for sub-contract worth Rs.50,00,000/- with a fond hope that the opposite parties would sanction the additional amount towards his business and that after entering into the sub-contract, the 2nd complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for release of the additional loan amount, but the 2nd opposite party is kept on postponing the same and that due to the improper acts of the 2nd opposite party, the said business proposal was delayed and later the said sub-contract was cancelled and the 2nd complainant suffered huge loss in the said business proposal, a part from the loss of Rs.10,237/- plus 0.5% stamp duty and other charges and also suffered mental agony and that even till today the opposite party has not responded to the repeated requests of the complainants and that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to be reimbursed are all false, incorrect and are denied as untrue. The complainants had obtained a housing loan. The value of the property was assessed at Rs.23,03,000/- as on 31-01-2008. The insurance for the said loan was paid by the complainants. Subsequently, the value of the building was increased to Rs.60,38,000/- as on 01-06-2011. On account of increasing the value of the property, the premium for enhanced value of the building was collected and the same is Rs.10,237/-. The said amount has nothing to do with the insurance alleged to be in respect of the second loan. 0.5% of stamp duty was not collected as alleged. In fact, there is no application for the sanction of second loan by the complainants and it was not processed
10. The allegation that the complainants got issued legal notice to the opposite parties for sanction of assured additional loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 02-07-2013, but the opposite parties completely ignored the said notice and that the opposite parties proceeded under the SARFAESI Act for the housing loan sanctioned by them and in this regard against the property and also got issued public notice that the 2nd opposite party has taken the possession of the property without notice and hence the 2nd complainant got issued another legal notice on 07-02-2014 questioning the opposite parties that instead of performing their part of contract, they proceeded illegally on the complainant under the guise of SARFAESI Act is not correct. The allegation that 2nd opposite party sent a reply notice is true. The allegation that deduction of the insurance amount and stamp duty of 0.5% on the value of the property towards additional loan is not correct. When once the granting of second loan is denied there is no necessity to further deny the other allegations. The complainants have not repaid the first loan properly as per the schedule and so the question of sanctioning another loan does not arise. Even other-wise the opposite party has got right to cancel the loan at any time if it feels that the party is not capable of repaying the amount or if there are any defaults in the earlier transactions. This opposite party learnt that the complainants have raised loan with State Bank of India also and on account of non –payment of the loans, action has been taken by the said Bank under SARFAESI Act. The economic status of the complainants is not good and so the question of sanctioning any loan does not arise. The allegation that the opposite party has intentionally acted adversely the interest of the public institution and wantonly misguided the complainants to harass them is not correct.
11. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that the loss claimed by the complainants is an imaginary one. The allegation that the loss of profit would be Rs.10,25,000/- is not correct. There is no mental agony caused to the complainants as alleged. The letter dt.15-12-2011 alleged to be issued by Sankar Arts is a got up document. In fact, the activity done by the 1st complainant has nothing to do with the sign board business. The said letter is brought into existence only for the purpose of this case. Further no proof is filed to show that the Sankar Arts has got any contacts from Pepsi Company. Even other-wise, the complainants cannot claim damages against the Bank for non-granting of the alleged loan. When business is done there is every likelihood of getting loses also. The 2nd complainant has sustained losses in his business and so his properties and the properties of the guarantors are proceeded against by the financial institutions as submitted above. The claim of the complainants is only an imaginary one and the 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay any amount muchless the amount claimed. In the notice issued to the Bank the complainants have not claimed damages or has not stated anything about the alleged sub contract with Sankar Arts. There is no assurance by this opposite party to sanction additional loan much more so for the purpose of the sub-contract as alleged by the complainants.
12. The 2nd opposite party submits that the claim of the complainants is barred by limitation. Unless the loan is sanctioned, there is no relationship of consumer and so the complaint itself under the provision of section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that there is no cause of action as alleged by the complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
13. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
1 & 2?
2. To what relief?
14. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the 2nd complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.A1 to A8 documents. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the 2nd opposite has been filed and marked Ex.B1 to B4 documents.
15. Heard both sides.
16. POINT NO.1 - The counsel for the complainants submitted that the complainants were sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.20,60,000/- under IBHL Loan Account No.764363385. The said amount was payable at EMI of Rs.20,000/- per month for 240 months. Accordingly, the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on different occasions after sanction of housing loan. The counsel for the complainants submitted that on due satisfaction of the complainants repayment capacity the 1st opposite party assured 2nd complainant to sanction an additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/- apart from the housing loan as the property is valued more than Rs.25,00,000/-. Further the counsel for the complainants submitted that before sanctioning additional loan, the 2nd opposite party Bank has deducted a sum of Rs.10,237/- on 25-11-2011 from the complainants joint account towards insurance said to have been sanctioned additional loan amount and also collected stamp duty of 0.5% over the value of the property for the said additional loan after getting prior approval from the 1st opposite party. After completion of all the formalities, the 2nd opposite party has recommended to the 1st opposite party for approval. But so far the 2nd opposite party has not released the assured additional loan amount though the 2nd opposite party has given his approval even after lapse of 2 years and in this connection the 2nd complainant approached the 1st opposite party with regard to sanction of additional loan and he was informed that they have already issued a circular to sanction the said amount and the 2nd opposite party has also received the said circular. Even after that the 2nd complainant approached the 2nd opposite party number of times and requested for immediate sanction of loan but the 2nd opposite party has not sanctioned the amount so far which is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainants have suffered lot of mental agony.
17. The counsel for the complainants submitted that the 2nd complainant entered into a business proposal with M/s Sankar Arts, Ananthapuramu for sub-contract worth Rs.50,00,000/- with a fond hope that the 2nd opposite party would sanction additional loan for his business. After entering into the sub contract, the 2nd complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for release of the additional loan but the 2nd opposite party kept on postponing the same. The counsel for the complainants argued that due to improper acts of the 2nd opposite party the said business proposal was delayed and later the said sub contract was cancelled and the 2nd complainant has suffered huge loss in the said business proposal apart loss of Rs.10,237/- + 0.5% stamp duty and other charges and also suffered mental agony. Subsequently the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties for sanction of assured additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on 02-07-2013 but the opposite parties completely ignored the said notice.
18. The counsel for the complainants argued that further the opposite parties proceeded under SARFAESI Act for the housing loan sanctioned by them against the property and also got issued a public notice that the 2nd opposite party has taken possession of the property without notice and hence the 2nd complainant got issued another notice on 07-02-2014 questioning the opposite parties that instead of performing their part of contract, they illegally proceeded on the complainants under SARFAESI Act. Later the opposite party sent a reply notice on 19-02-0214 with all false allegations but they have not denied the deduction of insurance amount of Rs.10,237/- and stamp duty of 0.5% on the value of property towards additional loan amount. The counsel for the complainants argued that all the above facts show that the opposite parties have caused deficiency of service on their part for which the complainants have to suffer financially and mentally. Hence, requested the Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to compensate the loss of profit on business a sum of Rs.10,25,000/-, Insurance premium of Rs.10,237/- + 0.5% stamp duty on additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/- of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.60,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
19. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are not correct and the complainants are put to strict proof of all the allegations, which are not specifically admitted. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the complainants have availed housing loan of Rs.20,60,000/- under IBHL Loan Account No.74363385 agreeing to repay the loan in 240 monthly equated installments @ Rs.20,000/- per month and further submitted that the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on different dates from the date of sanction of housing loan.
20. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the allegations that on due satisfaction of the complainants repayment capacity, the 2nd opposite party had assured
the 2nd complainant to sanction an additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/- apart from housing loan of Rs.20,60,000/- as the property is valued more than Rs.25,00,000/- is not true. Further the allegation that the 2nd complainant offered the said property for sanction of additional loan amount, the opposite party-Bank has deducted a sum of Rs.10,237/- on 25-11-2011 from the complainants joint account towards insurance said to have been sanctioned the additional loan amount and also collected stamp duty 0.5% over the value of the property for the said additional loan amount after getting prior approval from 1st opposite party-Bank and that after completion of all the formalities the 2nd opposite party Bank has recommended to 1st opposite party for approval is also false. Further allegation that the 2nd opposite party Bank has not released the assured additional loan amount though the 2nd opposite party has given approval, even after a lapse of about 2 years and in this connection the 2nd complainant approached the 1st opposite party with regard to sanction of additional loan amount and came to know that they had already sent a circular to sanction the said amount and the 2nd opposite party though received the same has not sanctioned the additional loan even after requests made by the complainants are all false and invented for the purpose of filing this complaint and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
21. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the allegation that the 2nd complainant entered into a business proposal with M/s Sankar Arts, Ananthapuramu for sub-contract worth Rs.50,00,000/- with a fond hope that the opposite parties would sanction the additional loan for his business and as the 2nd opposite party has not sanctioned the said loan, the said business proposal was delayed and later the said sub contract was cancelled due to which the complainants have suffered huge loss in the said business proposal apart from loss of Rs.10,237/- + 0.5% stamp duty and other charges and also suffered mental agony for which the opposite parties are liable is also false and created for the purpose of filing this complaint. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the value of the property was assessed at Rs.23,03,000/- as on 31-01-2008 and the insurance premium was paid by the complainants. Subsequently, as the value of the building was increased to Rs.60,38,000/- as on 01-06-2011 on account of increased value of the property, the premium for enhanced value of the building was collected and the same is Rs.10,237/-. The said amount has nothing to do with reference to the alleged insurance premium with respect to additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and 0.5% of stamp duty was not collected as alleged. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that there was no application for the sanction of second loan by the complainants it was not processed
22. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the allegation that the complainants got issued legal notice to the opposite parties for sanction of assured additional loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 02-07-2013, but the opposite parties completely ignored the said notice and that the opposite parties proceeded under the SARFAESI Act for the housing loan sanctioned by them against the property and also got issued public notice that the 2nd opposite party has taken the possession of the property without notice and hence the 2nd complainant got issued another legal notice on 07-02-2014 questioning the opposite parties to perform their part of contract, they proceeded illegally under SARFAESI Act is not correct. The allegation that deduction of the insurance amount and stamp duty of 0.5% on the value of the property towards additional loan is not correct. When once the granting of second loan is denied there is no necessity to further deny the other allegations. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the complainants have not repaid the first loan properly as per the schedule, the question of sanctioning another loan does not arise. Even other-wise the opposite party has got every right to cancel the loan at any time if it feels that the party is not capable of repaying the amount or if there are any defaults in the earlier transactions. Further argued that in fact the 2nd opposite party came to know that the complainants have raised loan with State Bank of India also and on account of non –payment of the loans, action was taken by the said Bank under SARFAESI Act. Hence the allegation that the opposite party has intentionally acted adversely to the interest of the public institution and wantonly misguided the complainants to harass them is not correct.
23. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the loss claimed by the complainants is an imaginary one. The allegation that the loss of profit would be Rs.10,25,000/- is not correct. There is no mental agony caused to the complainants as alleged. The letter dt.15-12-2011 alleged to be issued by Sankar Arts is a got up document and in fact, the activity done by the 1st complainant has nothing to do with the sign board business. The said letter is brought into existence only for the purpose of this case. Even other-wise, the complainants cannot claim damages against the Bank for non-granting of the alleged loan and there is no proof to show that he would got profit in the business and there is every likelihood of getting loses also. And further argued that as the 2nd complainant has sustained loss in his business and so his properties and the properties of guarantors are proceeded against by the financial institutions as submitted above. The claim of the complainants is an imaginary one and the 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the complainants. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
24. After hearing the arguments of both sides, it is an admitted fact that the complainants have availed a housing loan of Rs.20,60,000/-, which is repayable in 240 EMI @ Rs.20,000/- per month. It is also an admitted fact that the complainants have repaid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- after sanction of the house loan of Rs.20,60,000/-. As seen from Ex.A8 document, which is an Insurance Policy dt.25-11-2011, which clearly shows that an amount of Rs.10,237/- was collected from the Banker for the enhanced sum insured for the building from Rs.23,00,000/- to Rs.60,50,000/- and the said amount was debited in the account of the complainants, which is also not in dispute. As per the version of the complainants, the said amount of Rs.10,237/- and 0.5% stamp duty on Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. additional loan has been collected by the opposite parties, but whereas the opposite parties state that the said amount of Rs.10,237/- is collected towards enhancement of value of the building and 0.5% was collected towards other charges. As seen from Ex.A8 policy the complainants building was insured for a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- at the first instance on 28-03-2008, which is valid upto 27-03-2018. It clearly shows that when the policy is valid upto 27-03-2018 there is no need for the complainants or opposite parties to enhance the value of the building from Rs.23,00,000/- to Rs.60,50,000/- before the expiry date of the policy. The said amount of Rs.10,237/-, which is debited in the account of the complainants clearly shows that something has transpired between the complainants and opposite parties with regard to sanction of additional loan, but the same did not materialize subsequently.
25. The complainants in support of their contention, they have filed Ex.A5 document, which is Entrepreneurs’ Memorandum Part-I Acknowledgment registered as M/s Madhu Technologies, Proprietor K.Madhukar Sam to set up a Glow Sign Boards manufacturing enterprise. Further no document is filed by the opposite parties to show that the complainants have requested the opposite parties to enhance the value of the building for insurance. When the 2nd complainant himself has not requested to enhance the value of the building, where is the necessity for the Bank to enhance the value of the building from Rs.23,00,000/- to Rs.60,50,000/-, when the policy is valid from 28-03-2008 to 27-03-2018. There is no proper explanation given by the opposite parties for the said act. This clearly goes to show that a sum of Rs.10,237/- towards insurance is not collected for the enhancement of value of building of the complainants, but collected only for the purpose of enhancement of additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/- only and 0.5% of stamp duty is also collected only for the purpose of additional loan only. Further the 2nd opposite party himself has admitted that the complainants have paid loan installments of Rs.9,00,000/- towards housing loan taken by the complainants, which goes to show that there is no default of payment by the complainants. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the 2nd opposite party has not acted fairly in sanctioning additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the 2nd complainant. In support of the complainants’ argument, they relied upon a decision reported in 2014(1) CPJ (Tamil Nadu) page 67 wherein the facts are similar to that of this case. Considering the said ruling though the sanction of additional loan is a discretionary power of the Bank whether to grant the loan or not. In the instant case, we feel that the Bank i.e. 2nd opposite party has caused deficiency of service by not sanctioning additional loan inspite of collecting a sum of Rs.10,237/- towards insurance and 0.5.% of stamp duty on additional loan.
26. Hence, we are of the view that the 2nd opposite party has caused deficiency of service in not sanctioning the additional loan to the complainants inspite of collecting the insurance sum of Rs.10,237/- and other charges. But further as it is the discretionary power of the Banks to sanction and disburse the loan amount, if they are not satisfied for the same due to various reasons whether ascertained before sanction of loan or after sanction of loan in which the Consumer Forum can not interfere unless it is true that and such refusal or failure due to malafied intention. In the instant case, we have come to a conclusion that the opposite parties have failed to ascertain proper reason for non-sanction of the loan and caused deficiency of service. Like-wise regarding prayer of the complainants that they sustained loss of profit on business of Rs.10,25,000/- can not be considered. As far as the compensation towards mental agony caused by the opposite parties by not sanctioning the loan is nothing but deficiency of service. In view of the findings in point No.1 in favour of the complainants, the complainants are entitled for the justifiable compensation from the opposite parties for non-sanction of loan without justifiable reasons. Hence, we are convinced that the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards mental agony and also liable to refund the sum collected towards insurance premium of Rs.10,237/- + 0.5% of stamp duty on Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. Rs.5,000/- totaling to a sum of Rs.15,237/-. Further a sum of Rs.3,000/- is awarded towards costs of the complaint.
27. POINT NO.2 - In the result, the complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.15,237/- towards sum collected as insurance premium + stamp duty charges, Rs.60,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complainants within one month from the date of this order failing which interest shall be paid @ 9% p.a. on Rs.75,237/-.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 20th day of April, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVITS
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY No.2
PW1 – K.Madhukar Sam, 2nd Complainant RW1 - Sri Tippu Suttan Shaik, Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Ananthapuramu.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS
Ex.A1 – Photo copy of Statement of Account dt.25-02-2014 issued by the 2nd opposite
party to the complainants.
Ex.A2 – Office copy of legal notice dt.02-07-2013 got issued by the complainants to the
2nd Opposite party.
Ex.A3 – Office copy of legal notice dt.07-02-2014 got issued by the 2nd complainant to
the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A4 – Reply notice dt.19-02-2014 got issued by the 2nd opposite party to the counsel
for the complainants.
Ex.A5 – Photo copy of Entrepreneurs Memorandum Part-I Acknowledgment
dt.12-11-2008 issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre,
Ananthapuramu to the complainants.
Ex.A6 – Photo copy of letter issued by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Ananthapuramu to the Indian Bank, Ananthapuramu.
Ex.A7 – Photo copy of Statement of Account dt.25-02-2014 issued by the 2nd opposite
party to the complainants.
Ex.A8 – Duplicate copy of Insurance Policy relating to the complainants issued by
United India Insurance Company Ltd..
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
Ex.B1 – Photo copy of Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy Scheme issued by
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ananthapuramu to the complainants.
Ex.B2 - Photo copy of Statement of Account dt.18-02-2014 issued by the 2nd opposite
party to the complainants.
Ex.B3 - Photo copies of Premium Receipts issued by United India Insurance Company
Ltd.,
Ex.B4 - Photo copy of Paper Publication dt.28-09-2014.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
